SEXUAL AMNESIA

The most potentially damaging quote from Arnold yet: "I have no memory."

This was either a politically-motivated flip-flop or worse, the truth.
Carla Marinucci , of the SF Chronicle interviewed some pointy-headed intellectuals in the Political Science biz at UC Berkeley and Claremont, and they agree that these revelations are as serious as cancer.

What if Arnold really doesn't remember, just as I cannot remember the number of those famous Taco Bell crunchy tacos I've consumed?

This suggests an extraordinarily jaded attitude toward sex that contrasts with what most Californians feel. The best research indicates that most people don't have all that many sex partners. A U of Chi study found he number of adults (married or single) who had only one sex partner during the last five years is about 60%

So what are California's sexually choosy adults--probably the majority--to think of this on-the-record attributed quote:

Arnold managed to sustain simultaneous relationships with Sue [Moray] and Maria [Shriver] for more than a year, also dallying with other women along the way. One of them gave him a venereal disease.

'I was outraged,' remembers Sue. 'Arnold just said: "Look, what if I came and gave you a cold? Would you be outraged? You know I sleep with other people."

'He turned it on me, telling me that I was outrageous even thinking there was anything wrong about getting a venereal disease from him.'

Wendy Leigh, author of an out-of-print tell-all book about Arnold, warned Publisher's Weekly that she can write 6,000 words a day. Hard to believe that some greedy insta-book merchant hasn't already challenged her to warm up her word processor and put the pedal to the medal.

Personally, I think Friday was the tipping point for Arnold's campaign. I think he's about to slide off the greasy plate, like a hot sirloin steak.

The author of the Oui interview has been all over the tube. I think the only reason we haven't also seen the far more knowledgeable Ms. Leigh is timing. Wait until she starts that author's tour.

HOWARD DEAN ON FIRE

While there's still a big war to be fought out here in the Golden State, I see a well-financed NO campaign and Team Big Guy is wishing that it'd taken poison instead of signing up with the over-sexed Senor Universe.

Both Gray Davis and Bill McClintock are steady as she goes, meaning, worse case, it's Cruz. So I'm going to try to concentrate on the bigger picture, which is how do we beat George Bush? Looks like it's gonna be a case of "as goes Vermont, so goes the nation," because Ho Ho's campaign looks like a wrecking ball.

Calif. Reps are in disarray, and it's all Karl Rove's fault. This Schwarzenegger brainstorm of his is going to cost him.

As Dems, we've been complaining the mainstream press is slow to pick up Internet and smut magazine stories about the GOP.

But CNN jumped all over The Big Guy's 1977 interview with Oui magazine like a free piece of...oh, sorry, Arnold can talk that way, but I can't. And Team Big Guy is referring all questions to the candidate, which sounds like campaign guys getting ready to quit.

In other news, Howard Dean has all but won the nomination. True, there's a lot of water to flow under more than one bridge, but the latest NH Zogby poll is a bone-crusher. Believe me, poll numbers like these will reflect BACKWARDS into Iowa and FORWARDS into SC.

Dean is beating the Anybody But Dean guy, Joe Lieberman, by 6-1. He has 2/5th of the NH vote against a field of NINE. If every single one of the undecideds broke to his nearest rival, he would STILL be in a statistical tie for the lead.

True, his nuimbers are hypo-ed because his commercials have been running in a vacuum. But whose fault is that? The other campaigns were once again a dollar short and a day late, and any fair-minded observer has gotta give head coach Joe Trippi all the credit in the world.

As I've said, I fear that Dean may have a natural ceiling because of his lack of foreign policy credentials. But, you can't beat somebody with nobody, and nobody has laid a glove on him.

The Dean campaign claims it has 1,000 precinct walkers headed for Iowa next month. So far, it's just a press release, but Joe T. hasn't written any checks with his mouth that his campaign can't cash. You gotta love the Teamos and Machinists but, all kidding aside, you can't match college kids in the door-to-door wars.

There are three fofces that could slow or stop Dean. Number one: AFL-CIO. If they endorsed Gephardt, they might do for him what they did for Al Gore against the Bradley challenge. But why should they stick their hand in that fire? Number two: Al Gore himself. He's said emphatically that he's going to endorse someone. If it's not Dean, that's not good news for Howard. But who says it won't be Dean? He said the party needed a fresh face, and nobody can say that Ho-Ho isn't a pretty fresh guy. Number three: The Big Dog. While he has vowed to stay neutral, his slightest word means a lot.

This grew; I gave commands;
Then all smiles stopped together.

Wesley Clark could beat Dean. But he would need endorsements up the gump-stump, and pretty damn quick. AFL-CIO isn't going to go there, but Clinton and Gore might. More than any other candidate, endorsements are huge for Clark. In addition to the big three mentioned above, numerous other "name" Democrats will likely be released as the field thins.

Kerry's campaign is headed for Toiletland, USA. But he has a big stash and will want to spend most of it to see if he can goose up his sagging support. Every other candidate is running on Mastercard and fumes. Dick Gephardt alone stands to raise some real dough after the AFL-CIO meets in October, because the big internationals that like him can start sending money and people his way.

Dean's campaign is compared to McGovern's because it has antiwar kids in it. But, first, McGovern WON the nomination with those antiwar kids. A point worth remembering. And second, Dean is WAY ahead of where McGovern was on Labor Day, 1971. He is in immeasurably better shape re: party unity. A point worth repeating over and over again.

McGovern was 1000-1 at this point in the campaign. He wasn't seriously regarded until April, after winning Wisconsin, and he didn't have the nomination until Willie Brown got the party to give him his delegation back while Rick Stearns was handwriting the name of Thomas Eagleton on already printed ballots. The entire Democratic establishment was lined up behind first Ed Muskie., then HHH.

Dean doesn't face anything like the level of hostility that McGovern aroused within a far more hawkish AFL-CIO and among party regulars.

For my part, I'm going to start learning to love Howard Dean. The sooner he wraps it up--and he sure looks like he's wrapping it up--the better.

'Cause beating George Bush is what it's all about.

WATCH THEIR EYES AND PASS THE FRIES

A fast food joint--I won't repeat its name--has a poll where if you buy the cheapest and most popular item on its menu, you just voted for Arnold.

Okay, fair enough. I say buy up that cheap item in quantity and pound 'em down--you're helping prop up the Reps' weakest candidate.

The Big Guy looks good, if you like muscles, and he can even act, if you call that crap acting.

But as a political candidate, he's a sterno-drinking piss-bum.

SacBee blogger Dan Weintraub, who is the first person I read after brushing my teeth and deleting my spam, says Team Big Guy is taking their whoremaster "dream candidate" right down the middle.

Well, maybe. I say The Big Guy is lurching left and right, like a drunk driver on two-lane blacktop. If you take the average of his lane positions, he's headed right down the middle.

I guess Team Big Guy thought coming out for abortion and gun control on Sean Hannity was going to be some kind of Sister Souljah moment.

I call it a death wish moment.

Are AT LEAST 1/5 of the most likely GOP voters adamantly single-issue voters on abortion, gun control, or both?

Dam' Skppy.

And does that give Cruz like a 4.5 to 3 partisan edge going in?

That's a another BIG ten-four.

Hey, Karl! Can you FEEL the pain? Hurts, don't it?

PUSH POLL PUSHES GEN. CLARK A LITTLE TOO HARD

A draft-Wesley-Clark poll suggests that the more voters learn about Clark, the better they will like him. The poll results contain a giant's helping of "ifs," but still do seem to show that Dem and Rep voters alike hunger for military competence in their commander-in-chief.

The questionnaire designers should have worked as hard to write bios of the other candidates as they did writing Clark's:

A former four-star general and NATO supreme commander during the Clinton
Administration. He was first in his class at West Point, a Rhodes Scholar, is a decorated
Vietnam Veteran, and is a national security expert. He is a successful businessman leading the
effort to reduce our dependence on oil. Is a moderate on domestic policy issues and is from the
South.

In the description of Joe Lieberman, for example, there is no mention of his long support for a strong national defense or his authorship of the original Homeland Security bill. Graham was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but this was not mentioned. And John Kerry's personal heroism is not sufficiently described, especially given that he enlisted from Yale, not a military academy.

Not surprisingly, Clark's stock soars when voters learn all the details of his impressive resume. But Kerry and Graham, to mention only two, also have impressive resumes and neither has been able to get the word out sufficiently to move up in the polls. This poll has no way of predicting how successful Clark will be in getting his positives out in front of the voters.

The worst defect of this poll was in the Clark-Bush head to head. Respondents were read Clark's glowing bio but only told of his opponent that his name is George W. Bush. To get anything reasonable, the interviewers should have described Bush as the man who led the U.S. response to 9/11 and who cut taxes for all Americans twice. As asked, the question strongly implies that the interviewer wants the respondent to choose Clark. Also this question, the last to be asked, was certainly biased by the earlier questions, which included the idealized Clark bio.

The most significant finding echoes the DLC-funded Mark Penn study: 70% of Democrats think that military or national security experience is very important or somewhat important in choosing a candidate. This should be extremely worrisome for Howard Dean who has yet to wrap himself in the flag and surround himself with defense figures as another governor, G.W. Bush, did in his drive for the White House.

I'm wondering if Dean has a natural ceiling of 30%.

Here are the other push bios:

(Lieberman) “B” is a senator from a northeastern state who is widely regarded as a centrist and
the moral voice of the party. He stood on the senate floor and was critical of Bill Clinton during
the impeachment scandal. This candidate is willing to defy party leaders by recommending
reforms like school vouchers. He would be the first Jewish nominee.
(Kerry) “C” is a decorated Vietnam War veteran who is generally considered a liberal. He is
regarded as articulate on a wide range of issues. He supported the war in Iraq, but is now critical
of how the Bush administration is handling the aftermath. He has been a state attorney general,
a lieutenant governor, and has been a United States senator from a northeastern state for 20
years.
(Gephardt) “D” has run for president before and receives strong support from labor unions. He
is a congressman from a Midwestern state and has been both majority and minority leader in the
House of Representatives. He is the first candidate to propose an extensive health care reform
package.
(Dean) “E” is a physician and has served as lieutenant governor and until recently, was
governor of a small New England state. He is running as a liberal, campaigning as a populist.
He steadfastly opposed the war in Iraq and he signed a bill into law allowing civil unions for gay
couples. He attracts large crowds and has surprised pundits with his recent success in raising
money.
(Edwards) “F” is a first term senator from a southern state. He is young and is a successful trial
lawyer. He is running a populist campaign, though he is regarded as a centrist in the party. He
supported the war in Iraq and has raised a lot of money in the first two quarters.
(Graham) “G” is a senator from a large and important southern state. He has served as a state
senator, a governor, and has now been in the United States senate for 17 years. He is critical of
the Bush administration on homeland security and is the only senator running who did not
support the war in Iraq. Once a month he spends time doing different jobs like waiting on tables,
general laborer, etc. to better understand how regular people live.

STATE FED FED UP WITH THE GOP

The AFL-CIO has joined the teachers and state employees (mostly not represented by the state federation of labor) in backing the NO Recall/YES Cruz strategy.

By the time Bill Clinton gets to town, I think the locals will have figured it out. As John Burton said, it's hard to turn down two bites out of the apple.

It's really a no-brainer. As the No Recall site says, you have to vote on the recall without knowing who you're replacing him with. But by the same token, you have to choose an alternate to the guv without knowing whether one will be needed. We can't afford to assume the recall will fail and that therefore we don't need to worry about question two.

The object here is to shove this thing into the GOP and then break the handle off.

It's hard to decide which would be the better torture. Crush the recall and leave the Calif. GOP splintered and bleeding, with big-time recriminations against Rove & Co. for yet again trying to foist a liberal Rep on a party that doesn't want one? Or lose the recall but elect Cruz, giving the Reps what divided political parties deserve--ashes in the back of their mouth.

We have two ways to beat these election-stealing thugs and we ought to push both of them to the max.

If you want to look for a silver lining in the Recall--besides providing needed employment to signature-gathering winos--it is that it offers Democrats a free pass to practice really partisan politics. In this election, the swing voters don't matter a damn; it's all about who can turn out the base.

On a good day, the Dem base might total 50% plus one on the recall question. But on any day, it should be large enough to give Cruz a plurality.

A strong Cruz campaign not only benefits Davis by bringing NO voters to the polls, it also may take the mickey out of the Recall vote itself. It's possible Cruz will hold a lead even in the face of the inevitable well-financed smear. If it appears that the Reps have no chance, a chunk of independents and responsible Republicans may rediscover their civic-mindedness and oppose the Recall, much as John Warner and others in the Senate opposed impeachment without embracing Clinton.

These twin campaigns are a tune-up fight for the 2004 presidential race. We have no alternative except victory.

A SCORPION BEGS FOR MONEY

The wretch Huffington can boast of only $65K so far to fund her gauzy, snotty commercial. Huffington appropriates the GOP's "Blackout/Gray Out" theme to attack Davis, and also, in another shot at Davis, suggests that teacher's salaries could be made higher than those of prison guards, which they certainly could be--by a governor willing to break one union to help another.

Her commercial is right out of Bush-Cheney playbook: 1. Accuse Davis of raising too much money (so they can crush him with millions from Big Oil and Big Pharma). Attack pay increases for unionized prison guards--who certainly deserve whatever they are paid for a nasty, dirty and dangerous job--because Davis received contributions from them. 3. Assert that the Democratic Governor, not the oil-soaked White House, is responsible for California's blackouts.

Although she calls herself independent, her ad has ZERO criticism of the GOP.

Arianna has turned undiluted sleaze. She should NOT be ignored as we ignored Nader.

Like Nader, she says there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans ("This election is not about Right or Left."

On the contrary, that is EXACTLY what this election is about: Do you or Don't you support the GOP power grab?

Huffington should be repudiated, rejected and shunned.

DAUNTLESS COURAGE

The details of John Kerry's combat service are finally getting some notice, as his schedule these days is filled almost exclusively with veterans' stops.

Although The Note cautions against a campaign slogan that says, "vote for me, I've killed people," I'm not so sure. Most of Bush's support level is held up by the perception that he, and not the Democrats, is ready to pull the trigger in a post-911 world.

And an excellent article in the Denver Post shows the full dimension of Kerry's heroism, detailing how he imposed fire discipline in a dangerous combat zone, preventing the killing of more civilians.

And, for the first time in my recollection, a major news organization draws an explicit comparison between Kerry's perilous overseas gunboat service and Bush's stay-at-home service in the National Guard. Much more could be made of this, including the affidavit signed by Bush explicitly stating that he did not wish to fly in the same skies as John McCain.

Kerry's support among Vietnam Vets runs deep and is not restricted to Navy comrades. The former Marine Corps boss of SC's Parris Island is backing Kerry and Army veteran Max Cleland points out that Kerry has "a few holes in his t-shirt" to prove the reality of his combat service.

Kerry's war will make excellent TV. He is wise to concentrate on it exclusively until he achieves the differentiation he needs. It is not, to be sure, enough to win the election by itself, as George McGovern and Robert Dole both discovered. But it may well be enough to gain the plurality needed in the early primaries.

No one knows how a president will react in times of great stress and peril. But, if past is prologue, Kerry's behavior under fire commends him to us as a commander-in-chief.

Literary note: Yes, I am aware that the phrase "dauntless courage" refers to Milton's Satan. Like Lord Byron, I regard him as the best character in the story.

THE REPTILE HUFFINGTON

On a recent visit to Oakland, the Rev. Al Sharpton said correctly, "a vote for the recall is a vote for George W. Bush."

Arianna Huffington doesn't care. Her website says, "Personally, Arianna plans to vote 'yes' on the recall."

This is a deal-breaker.

Huffington needs to slapped down, hard and early, before the idea gets around that is somehow okay to endorse a scheme hatched by Darrell Issa, Karl Rove, and the usual Rogue's Gallery of GOP thugs.

This is no time to temporize or play patty-cake with Huffington or anyone else who sells us out. She needs to opposed, rejected and shunned.

Her position, however she perfumes it, is nonetheless tantamount to supporting the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the theft of Florida, and the criminal redistricting in Texas and Colorado.

What a treacherous sow she is. A line has been drawn for battle and Huffington is way the hell over on the wrong side.

Huffington, who connived in the spending of $27 million of community property spent in a scuzzball campaign against Diane Feinstein before her "conversion" to liberal values is as big a self-centered detriment to society as her pal Ralph Nader.

Not surprisingly, she's playing kissy-face with Peter Camejo, the dimwitted bag-carrier who muttered, with guilty knowledge of it why it was so richly deserved, his suspicion that Democrats had paid for the pie in Nader's ugly puss.

Hey, good guess, pud-for-brains. Get famous and see if you get one of your own.

Like Nader, Huffington pretends to stand for some high-minded ideals, many of which I share. She has correctly characterized the recall as a right-wing ploy, placed on the ballot by winos-for-hire. But knowing that, she still plans to vote Yes on the Recall.

It does no good to pay lip service to progressive values if you take a razor to the throat of the people who are fighting your battles.

Every Democrat, right now, needs to denounce this hypocrite for what she is, a solipsistic dream-wrecker who should never again grace the pages of any left-leaning website.

Better to let a liver flux into your bloodstream than to allow this vicious human parasite to spread her venom.

Just as nits make lice, Arianna's treachery could grow and spread. Soon, it could be trendy and cool, if she has her duplicitous way, to be for the recall.

If you are in denial of the nature of her crime, think it over, and ask yourself why EVERY worthwhile state and national Democrat violently disagrees with her.

Yes on the Recall is a vote to reelect Bush.

NO JOY IN ROVEVILLE

Must have been gloomy Chez Karl Rove this weekend. Polls show the Democrats soaring in California. And Bush is nose-diving toiletward thanks to idiotic Iraq policy.

1. Even the exit of Bill Simon from the second ballot question in the California Recall wasn't especially good news. The same LA Times poll that shows Demcrat Cruz Bustamante opening up a dramatic lead over Schwarzenegger and the entire field also shows McClintock beatiing Simon by a matter of 2-1 (The poll was taken before Simon's withdrawal). Even if Simon endorses the Big Guy, figure his six percent to go three ways: two percent stays with Simon himself because of his name recognition; two percent goes to McClintock; one percent goes the Arnold, and one percent to other candidates. Remember, in his two weeks as a candidate, Simon helped bring Arnold down from the stratosphere with some very tough attacks that could find their way into a Bustamante commercial. And Simon hasn't endorsed The Big Guy.

With Simon out of the race, McClintock will be able to present himself as the clear alternative to free love advocate Arnold Schwarzenegger. Religious conservatives will go all-out for McClintock; they can't bear the idea of Arnold becoming any kind of standard bearer for the GOP. About 22% of voters support a complete ban on abortions, regardless of circumstance. They make up the base of the GOP. And Arnold himself is only polling 22%. So I say McClintock makes it a horse-race for second place.

Although the media coverage suggests that every Republican in the state wants unity behind Arnold, the truth is that the California Republican Assembly unanimously endorsed McClintock. He is the only Republican elected official in the race. He was the GOP's nominee for state controller, losing by only 1.5 points to Steve Westly, a Democratic party official. McClintock was chairman of the Ventura Republican Party Central Committee and Minority Whip in the State Assembly. And, although he is the darling of the far right, he is also one of the knowledgable legislators in either party on the technical details of the state budget.

McClintock has a much better claim than Arnold to the title of party regular.

2. The American people are coming to the realize James Carville was right when he said, early in the conflict, that "Iraq is Arablic for Vietnam," and that the occupation of Iraq would be a far better issue for Democrats than the WMD controversy. Today's Newseek Poll shows goddawful pessism and resentment on the part of American taxpayers toward George W's Great Adventure. By nearly 2-1, voters said the U.S. was spending too much (i.e., $1 billion/week) on the war, and only 13% would continue this level of spending for three years or more. This has to be a most revolting development for Rove since there is no way to change course or distract the voters from this issue.

3. The best outcome for Rove in California would seem to be the recall of Davis and the election of Cruz Bustamante. He would probably count this as a win in his won-lost record, but no one else will. In addition to the 35-22 Cruz vs. Big Guy horserace number, the LA Times found that Bustamante is one of the most popular men in Calif. Right now, Cruz enjoys an image ratio of 5:3. The Big Guy is down to 1:1, while Ueberroth, among the 50% who know him, is at a very striking 4:1.

Ueberroth has a much better claim than Arnold on the state's moderate/independent voters. And he hasn't even started to spend.

So it's possible Team Big Guy finishes fourth in a four-horse race. Hey, Karl! Tell me! How ugly is that?

RECALL HEADED UP ROVE'S SNOUT

Support for the recall is falling and will fall further, as GOP attempts to beat up its activist wing fall flat. And fall flat, they assuredly will. State Sen. McClintock, who is burning up the Right-Wing Drool Case talk radio shows, says he agrees with the sentiment that there should be fewer Republican candidates and suggests that The Big Guy drop out and endorse him.

He's not kidding.

There is no way--no way in hell--that the GOP hard-core will accept Arnold's permissive attitudes on abortion, gay rights, Bill Clinton and, indeed, his own very relaxed moral standards about sexuality. Arnold allegedly caught VD once and compared it to the common cold. How do you think THAT story, true or not, will go over in the huge Los Gatos Christian Church and similar establishments around the state?

Even if--and it's a big IF--Arnold's guys can convince the voters that he is the real deal insofar as No New Taxes is concerned, the social issues will kill him deader than last Tuesday with the sizable Religious Right coalition. They will NOT support him.

Trust me on this. Unlike many Recall experts, I LIVE here.

Is Ueberroth, who said from day one that he was running as an independent, going to be elbowed out by party bosses? I think not.

McClintock? He has made his feelings pretty clear by suggesting that it is Arnold who should drop out.

That leaves Simon, a rich guy mesmerized by the three million votes he got just last year. My guess is that he thinks Schwarzenegger, Ueberroth and McClintock should ALL drop out. Without overt help from the White House, I don't think the state GOP can thin this field. The time for that was about two weeks ago, before the Secretary of State started setting type for the ballots.

The Democrats are going to shove this one up Karl Rove's snout. Either they beat the recall outright....and that has always been more likely than anyone in the media has wanted to admit, with even the polls that showed Davis getting crushed also showing a 50-50 split between those who thought the recall was a good idea and those who did not. I'm not going to link the seminal Time/CNN poll again, which has driven the story line ever since the weekend after filing. But go find it if you don't believe me.

...or they beat it the other way, with Cruz nosing out the nearest Republican, who could be any one of four. The rape of California universities by the GOP--and the tripling of auto registration fees--have voters stirred up, and in a serious mood. Not everybody who wants the Big Guy's autograph is going to vote for him to run their state. I'm not convinced he will even lead the GOP field when we get to the first Tuesday in Oct. For all his charm, I don't think Big Guy can hit the major league curveball.

No amount of scheming or campaign contributions can change this fact: The Dems have a coupled entry. Either No on Recall or Yes on Cruz pays a win ticket.

TESTOSTERONE POLITICS

Gen. Wesley Clark and former president Clinton were the twin stars of the recent Brainstorm Conference, a confab of over-achieving intellectuals chronicled by Michael Wolff of New York Magazine.

Slow to anger at Bush's organized and sustained effort to ridicule, blame and belittle his two administrations, Clinton seems to have finally put on his boxing gloves. Just in case, as the Ernie K-Do song would have it, some fool might want a fight.

The Democrats have a potential advantage-not yet brought to bear-in the persons of Clinton and Gore. Both are young (for men who have held such exalted office) and effective campaigners. They are the de facto leaders of the Democratic Party, a traditionally toothless instrument of power.

Both have said they will help California Dems fight the recall. The degree of vigor they bring to this fight will be a significant portent of the 2004 race.

The Wesley Clark candidacy--and it's hard to doubt that there will be one--will be good for the Democrats. At a minimum, it will continue to challenge the assumption that Bush is a good commander-in-chief. Clark has credibility no only because of his military resume, but also because of his success as a television talking head. He will enjoy a honeymoon during his first fundraising reporting period, after which the water in his media bath will run out if he hasn't raised serious coin.

The Clark Campaign will also probably seal an AFL-CIO open endorsement, simply by adding another note of uncertainty into the "who can win" calculation. Your labor skates don't mind a fight, but they like to have a little of the best of it going for them. While they might convince themselves that Dickie G can handle the other eight, a potentially strong ninth contender is just one too many.

With support from Clinton and Gore, Clark could capture the nomination. I like John Kerry as his running mate--the four purple hearts ticket. Bush has thrown out the Powell Doctrine and sunk the U.S. in a quagmire. Who better than two Vietnam War heroes to remind the voters of Bush's folly and to promise peace with honor? As an added bonus, the contrast with Bush’s desertion from the National Guard might finally get this story written and broadcast.

WHAT'S UP WITH TEAM BIG GUY?

Arnold's press guys sound so dumb they might be better off letting the Austrian speak for himself.

First, they attack the integrity of the Field Poll, which hasn't taken nickel one from a politician since the year of my ever-lovin' birth, 1947. "Left-leaning," my achin' feet. You don't stop a downward slide by claiming the next polls will be better.

Next, they say about Simon's scorching Prop. 13 commercial, "we don't have to reply to every candidate in single digits," when in fact they already have responded, recognizing that the "tampering with Prop 13" argument, if believed, will sink the Big Guy like a barbell in the sea.

Simon is at 8 points (17 among GOP voters). He will almost certainly keep attacking The Big Guy. He will almost certainly crack 10 percent.

Then what, crack press wizards? Won't some inkstained wretch demand a response? After all, you promised.

Oh, I get it. You plan to claim, AGAIN, that the Field Poll is biased. The only people who believe that are the drool case Right, and you've alienated most of them.

Schwarzenegger is well-poised to bring about a revival of Rockefeller Republicanism, according to columnist (and Arianna wordsmith) Matthew Miller.

Trouble is, Goldwater waxed Rockefeller in California like 40 years ago, and the state's GOP hasn't budged an inch to the left ever since.

Team Big Guy starts on spending spree that will total maybe $15 million in media alone by 10/7. They'll be pounding it down a rat-hole if they don't get on top of the free media. I'm not so sure sending him out surrounded by experts--including one who opposes both Prop 13 and Bush's tax cut--is going to calm GOP voters who suspect he doesn't know shit from carbon paper about state politics.

FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!

Don't let the spelling of "centre" fool you; the Guardian's Hugo Young has figured it out.

The Dems need to consolidate their base, then move to the center. Concerns that Dean or anyone else is "too far to the left" are silly in light of the extremism of the Bush Administration. Any candidate who contrasts his views to those of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld will look moderate.

We are not running against a liberal/centrist GOP ticket like Nixon-Agnew or Ford-Dole or Dole-Kemp. Republicans of this stripe do have the capacity to rob votes from our own center-right wing. But Bush's policy on taxation, the environment, civll rights and foreign affairs are extreme.

Bush turns again and again to his hard-right base, bashing gays and Alaskan tundra with abandon.

An acceptably moderate position is simply to oppose Bush at every turn. For example, when he belittles or criticizes Clinton, say, no, Clinton was a much better president than you. We had peace and prosperity under Clinton. There is no reason for Democrats to say "I disapprove of Clinton's behavior with Monica Lewinksy." Say instead, "Clinton created jobs; Bush destroyed them."

On taxation, Democrats should say, "It's time to abolish Bush's failed tax cut and start over. We need a real middle-class tax cut, not Bush's phony one." To say that one would only roll back part of Bush's tax cut suggests that Bush was somehow on the right track.

On Gay Rights, Democrats should say, "Bush's attacks on Gays are like Hitler's attacks on the Jews. He is pandering to extremists in his party who believe in job discrimination and hatred toward unprotected minority groups." There is no need to debate Gay Marriage as such; the issue is that Bush is bed with people carrying signs at gay persons' funerals that read, "God Hates Fags."

In other words, we should neither expect nor give quarter.

Any Democrat can present a left-right contrast with Bush. As Hugo Young observes, Gore won the popular vote that way. The point is, we need a fighter. So far, that seems to mean Dean or Graham, although my estimation of Dickie G. goes up every day. Incredibly, our bravest candidate, war hero John Kerry, seems unaccountably afraid to make a sustained attack on Bush.

WESLEY CLARK: IKE OR ARNOLD?

Wesley Clark, first in his class at West Point, is a smart guy. He surely knows that candidates for high office who have never been elected to anything have a poor track record. Perot, Forbes, Buchanan and Elizabeth Dole all come to mind.

Of course, the two non-polititicians who went straight to the White House without passing Go were, like Clark, both generals. It's not impossible.

But, of course, Eisenhower and Grant were leaders of large-scale popular wars. Clark's bloodless victory in Kosovo--the Yuppie War--is not in the same category.

Winning a major engagement without loss of U.S. lives shoud be considered a major accomplishment. But I fear that Bush's bloody-minded bungling in Iraq actually recommends him to the voters more. Casualties raise the stakes, and voters tend to rally around the flag, as they did in 1944 and 1864.

The GOP is good at smearing war heroes, and it will not scuple to impugn Clark's patriotism and fitness. They will have no trouble finding right-wing generals and admirals, both serving and retired, to slam Clark's reputation.

Finally, while Clark says that raising money will "not be a problem," I tend to think it will be a nearly insurmountable problem. However, if Clark CAN raise big money quickly in 20 states, he will be formidable and might provide the breakthrough candidate Democrats have been waiting for.

Starting late could even be an advantage, earning him sort of pass to skip Iowa and try to raise hell in NH like that other flag-rank officer, Admiral John McCain.

2004 should be a Democratic year. It is only the perceived weakness of the Democrats in foreign policy and military affairs--and the Republicans shameless exploitation of our post-9/11 patriotic feeling--that makes the race even close.

Clark is verbally adept and media-practiced. Like Eisenhower or Powell, his experience is mostly as a political general. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. He has shown himself quick to slap down insects like Delay who question his patriotism or his military expertise.

But without cash, he won't even receive coverage from the wise-ass press.

If the current crop of actively competing candidates is really as forlorn as some say--which I don't believe--the obvious candidate for a draft is Gore. He won the popular vote. And, in a fair count, he would have won the electoral vote. It will be damned difficult for Clark or anyone else to duplicate, much less exceed, Gore's accomplishments.

The real secret to victory is getting every Democrat--from Kucinich to Lieberman--on the same page, and firmly cementing the traditional Lib/Lab twin bases of the party into a fighting machine. A Gephardt-Dean, Graham-Clinton, Lieberman-Edwards, Clinton-Clark, Kerry-Cleland or similar hybrid ticket would have the best chance in the absence of Gore changing his mind

REPS TWIST SLOWLY IN THE WIND

The three-part Field Poll is stuffed with horrible news for the GOP. And the bleating from Team Big Guy that this, the most respected and incorruptible poll in the history of the state, is "left-leaning" is simply risible. The Field Poll is the gold standard. It benchmarks the race. If the election were this Tuesday, Davis would be gone and Bustamante would be in, an outcome that would have to make Issa and his drool-case pals wonder why they spent all that money on signature-gathering winos.

The East Koast Kool Kids hate to write this story, but they will, now that's staring them in the face. The Christian Science Monitor is the first to echo the Steve High blog, perhaps because they're Christians and believe the truth will set them free. Or, to put it another way, "But many who are first, will be last; and the last, first. (Mark, 28, 31)

The Monitor's Liz Marlantes tells it like it is:

In the chaotic California recall battle, a fundamental factor is emerging as more significant than either the record of Gov. Gray Davis, or the colorful array of candidates vying to replace him: partisan unity.

Closer to home, Laura Kurtzman of the San Jose Mercury, summarizes the key bit of bad news for the Big Guy in Sunday's Part Three from the Field Institute. Unsurprisingly, the voters slam Herr Universe for not being a career politician. Even when you hire a carpet-cleaning firm, you like to know that yours is not the first carpet they've ever cleaned. Governor, same thing.

GOP Dwelling in A House of Pain:

First, they're losing to Bustamante. While the results are, in fact, a statistical tie between Cruz and The Big Guy, every news outlet in the U.S. reported the numbers, Cruz, 25, Arnold 22. It's better to be lucky than smart.

Second, Arnold's negatives are going up like a rocket, and his "say nothing" strategy isn't helping. As blogged earlier but worth repeating, the GOP's dream candidate went from 80 percent favorable to just 44 percent favorable among likely voters in a week. His campaign is screwed up. Firing campaign managers less than 60 days out is never a good sign. His surrogates are laying a gigantic goose egg, from Wilson (politician) to Buffett (tamperer with Prop. 13).

Third, they have a surfeit of good candidates. Simon earned the right to run again by coming close to Davis, and he's using it. Check out the Meet the Press transcipt and dig him slamming the Big Guy for being afraid to talk. McClintock is working the same dangerously powerful right-wing talk show circuit that led to the passage of Prop. 13. Leaving ideology out of it, McClintock may have the most detailed understanding of the budget of any contender except for Davis himself who, as he somewhat plaintively points out, IS the governor. Ueberroth can and will spend a bundle. Of the celebrity candidates, Ueberroth is far and away the most attractive to any half-way neutral observer (Leaves me out).

Bustamonte wins Part Two of the ballot almost by default; all his campaign has to say is, I'm a Democrat. Turnout, traditional a Democratic nightmare, has been goosed hard by the Arnold phenomenon. Despite bad blood between Gray and Cruz, which is especially harsh between their pit-bull staff and consultants, they share a common goal in getting mass quantitiies of Democrats to the polls. This squabbling reflects basic human nature--everybody gets along fine until the first dollar hits the table. Regardless of where the Democratic contributors wind up--and it's likely that both sides will get a decent share of the available dough--the net result of the spending will be to bring Democrats to the polls, while the Reps go in four directions.

Huffington will drag off some Dem support, to be sure. But her gadfly, manure-disturbing, excoriating attacks on Bush and Arnold will help Davis and Bustamonte get the word out without seeming to be up to their armits in slime. Field found Huffington way upside down in public opinon, but that doesn't mean she can't sling mud.

Davis won't survive the recall with Democratic votes alone. But Field found majority support for "this is no way to elect a governor," a sentiment that should balloon as the millions of dollars start filling California TV sets with unwelcome commercials from all sides. If I could figure out how use those cockamamie off-shore gambling casinos without going to jail, I'd bet a fast forty bucks against a C note that No on Recall wins.

It sucks to be a California Republican right now. Oh yeah, big-time.

TWO CHEERS FOR HOLY JOE

Sorry, can't muster three. I think he let Gore down. Perhaps by inclination, or perhaps because he didn't want to be unlikeable, Lieberman failed the ticket by not providing the attack dog services required of the VP nominee. Even Lloyd Bentsen, a more conservative Democrat than Lieberman, was willing to spend his personal popularity going after both Quayle and Bush Senior in the doomed Dukakis Campaign. In closer races, Spiro Agnew in '68 and Fritz Mondale in '76 and, indeed, Al Gore in '92, played a crucial role in contrasting the ticket's advantages to the deficiencies of the opposition. Lieberman, unbelievably, played easy against an embattled Dick Cheney and LOST the vice-presidential debate. He urged reason and conciliation during the Florida recount, ignoring the froth on the mouths of GOP thugs and the common-sense rule that you don't french-kiss a rabid bat.

Okay, I've said it. But, since I'd vote for Lassie if we could spray-paint her yellow and run her as a Democrat, here are some good things about Joe:

1. He is by far the most popular of the well-known Democrats, and the only one with a strongly positive image ratio (Latest: 42:28 ). Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle all barely have their heads above water when you compare the number of people who like them to the number of people who don't. True, campaigning makes a difference; in Nov. 2000, Al Gore's image ratio was near 4:3 But that's the point; it pretty much has to be in positive territory if a guy's gonna win an election.

And in the California recall, we've seen The Big Guy's image ratio crash from 80:10 to 44:40 in less than a week.

2. I don't think there's anything bad to find about Joseph Lieberman, except maybe eating a plate of ham and eggs once, just to try it. The press didn't even try very hard in 2000, knowing there were very few rumors to chase. He's as squeaky clean on personal stuff as anyone in the race except maybe Dickie G., who, right hand to God, is an Eagle Scout.

3. IA and NH may not matter so much this year. They always matter--a lot. But home field advantage can take away the sharp edge if the local favorite wins. If, as expected, Gephardt wins Iowa and Kerry wins NH, how much bounce do you see from that? Remember, Clinton lost to homeboy Tsongas in '92. As always, expectations are the name of the game in the door-to-door primaries. For the first since forever, we've got another early one in SC. If Lieberman can score in SC, his natural advantages will come to the fore in the multi-state primaries.

4. Unlike a Zell Miller or Lloyd Bentsen, Lieberman is not a predictably conservative Democrat. He has an admirable record of legislative achievement on issues ranging from political campaign reform to the first prescient Homeland Security bill. But typical of this rather bookish collegial politician, he allowed his thunder to be stolen by McCain and Bush respectively on these issues. He's a solid vote with the Dem Leadership on civil rights and the environment. But, all kidding aside, he's pretty conservative and votes like a liberal Republican, if you can still find one.

4. He's got a great sense of humor and is genuinely likeable. Here's how the Almanac of Politics wrote him up in 1998 before he got famous:

Joseph Lieberman in a decade in the Senate has exerted influence out of proportion to his seniority, committee position or political clout, an influence that came from respect for his independence of mind, civility of spirit and fidelity to causes in which he believes.

5. I've got zero problem voting for this guy. If you do, go back and listen to a year's worth of George Bush radio addresses and look closely at the people he likes to appoint. Surviving the first three primaries will not be easy for Holy Joe because fourth place doesn't pay anything. But he has reasonable chances against Bush if avoids Gore's mistake and picks a VP who knows how to act like a VP--Dean or Kucinich, for example.

6. Lieberman, together with Kerry and Graham, has the hawkish credentials to deny Bush a free ride to the flag factory. This is worth one entire cheer all by itself.

7. The other cheer comes from a combination of things: his sense of humor, his family, his brains and his sincerity.

8. Finally, if we elect him, we make history. I remember my sainted mother somewhat heatedly interrupting a college professor bull session during the 1960 campaign to say, "I don't know when the first Jew will get elected president, but I do know they'll elect a cocker spaniel before they elect a woman."

It would be nice to make history with Joe, but what I really want to make is hay. I don't want to elect the first Jew, Woman, Black or Croat, although Lieberman, Clinton, Mosely Braun and Kucinich are certainly all well-qualified to be president. What I want is Truman. He's eligible for another term and is just what we need right now. Unfortunately, he's still dead.

DO I BELIEVE WHAT THE KOOL KIDS WRITE, OR DO I BELIEVE MY LYIN' EYES?

According to the received story line, the Democrats are divided and the Republicans are a remorseless juggernaut. One problem: Cruz Bustamante is winning.

Of course, if you ignore California Election Law, you could Klaim, Kool Kids-style, that this means Bustamante is beating Gray Davis.

Another WAY inconvenient fact is that Californians are very worried about the wisdom of the recall itself.

The recent Field Poll and last week's Time/CNN snap poll show a 50/50 dead heat:

Field Poll, likely voters, Recall of Davis is...
Bad thing Good thing No opinion
August 47% 44 9
July 50% 44 6

Time/CNN 46% 47% 7

Both AP and the Washington Post ignored this finding in their respective summaries of the two polls.

PHONY WAR

California Dems are not at war with each other, but the Reps are.

Efforts by GOP leaders to muscle Simon and McClintock have been crowned with failure. Simon, according to Carla Marinucci, "went ballastic."

And McClintock's response was to book radio interviews at 10, 2 and 4, just like Dr. Pepper, this according to The Note.

The State GOP is officially taking no position, but the California Republican Assembly is unanimous behind McClintock. Shoot that boy some Indian Casino wampum and watch him go.

Congrats to The Note and other NYC media, btw, for coping with the blackout. Can't have been easy, although I guess ABC has a few more resources than the Los Gatos Times-Observer, where I used to work. I do have a question about the blackout: since Pataki and Bush admittedly have NO idea what caused this, how do they know it wasn't sabotage or terrorism? What they do know is, it'll be tough to blame on Clinton.

Clinton, together with every other Dem in the civilized world, is fighting the recall. There are two ways to fight it, of course. One is to beat it outright, and the other is to render its purpose moot by replacing Davis with his Democratic Lt. Gov. Either way will be a crushing defeat for the White House, which has nationalized this fight.

The decision whether to spend resources on the NO campaign or on the Bustamonte Campaign is tactical, not ideological. All of the presidential candidates (including Al Gore and Hillary Clinton) oppose the recall. Lieberman and Kucinich, who agree on little else, believe that Bustamonte should get support. The others tend to oppose this approach. Whichever way the Democrats choose to go, it's not going to be good news for Bush, who stands to lose under almost any conceivable outcome, including an Arnold victory and an enraged conservative base.

Bush's attempt to un-kiss Arnold reflects, I'm guessing, daily white house polls showing second thoughts about the musclehead.

The Field Poll out today, didn't report any numbers on The Big Guy, but shows a 58% pro-recall vote, which is down from 64% reported by CNN/Gallup on the weekend.

This is not great news, but it's hardly anything to take cyanide over. Between winning the NO vote and winning with Cruz, the Dems look good against the warring Reps.

LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE

Cragg Hines at the Houston Chronicle nails Bush's claim to be above politics:"...the smarminess stands out anew in 10-foot tall neon letters."

Accusing the Democrats of "pure politics," Bush continues to claim that he changed the tone, and that he and his rabid dog pack of pollsters and consultants and producers are somehow above it all.

And even those reporters who know first hand that covering the White House is like being stuffed feet-first into a Laundromat rug drier for fifteen minutes continue to back up the Prez as his lies whistle through his teeth.

A Fox/Opinion Dynamics study shows Arnold's numbers nationwide considerably lower than they are in Calif., with fewer saying they would vote for him as Governor of their state than those who say they would vote for him. Still, he's a very popular guy, with massive name ID and a good image ratio.

Speaking of image ratios, Holy Joe's looks pretty damned good (42-28). Too bad he can't campaign his way out of a wet paper bag.

Crybaby Bush is upset that Arnold is a bigger story than Bush-Cheney Re-elect. Bush is thought to be pretty likeable by the reporters allowed to get close to him, but there's no denying that he's a snot-nosed, spoiled-brat, never-worked-a-day-in-his-life Army deserter and election thief. Other than that, I've got no beef with the guy.

I DREAMED I SAW JOE HILL LAST NIGHT

I woke up this morning thinking it was time to take another look at Dick Gephardt's candidacy and found that the AP's Ron Fournier already had.

Looking at the blog map, the candidates who seem to bring the most to the party are--far and away, Bob Graham, followed by Dickie G., John Edwards and nobody. The three New England candidates bring no electoral votes, and the final three bring no votes at all. Kucinich comes from Ohio, a key state, but Ohio doesn't have all that many Vegans. And Congressmen have a poor presidential track record for the last century, although they were quite the fashion from John Quincy Adams to William McKinley.

Unlike Kucinich, Gephardt may not be stuck in the Rayburn Office Building box. The very things people complain about him--shopworn, has-been, never-was--may be an advantage in this respect. He is far more a national figure than Kucinich or even Mo Udall. He has survived more big-league press vetting than anyone else in the race.

I have slammed Gephardt's campaign ability and perhaps irrationally blamed him for not winning back Congress. I am inconsolably bereft over this failure, in part because I think they should have asked me to help. As old and stove-up as I am, I am convinced I could have won one or two races for the House Democrats. After all, I'm 30 for 39 in local and legislative races, and there's no doubt in my mind that I coulda been a contenda.

Steve Goodman wrote how I feel personally feel about the Democratic Party:

It was all that I could do to keep from cryin'
Sometimes it seems so useless to remain
You don't have to call me darlin', darlin'
You never even call me by my name.

The best thing about Gephardt is his capacity to arouse the sleeping giant. AFL-CIO has enormous resources in all 50 states, which are rarely brought fully to bear. If Dickie G. can unite the blue-collar heart and soul of the party with the hip, slick and cool Dean voters, he will win. This class split between workers and their allies in the intelligensia has plagued many a Democratic campaign: McGovern-Humphrey, Mondale-Hart, Gore-Bradley. Putting both men on the same ticket would have strengthened all three of these campaigns. So maybe we'll get wise to ourselves this time.

As Bill Schneider writes, the only way to win is to put these two voting blocs on the same team, as Carter and Clinton did.

Class war ain't for sissies. It takes both brawn and brains.

It is well to remember that business agents are elected officials themselves. If the local and national union leaders endorse Gephardt, it's because they know he has great star power with the rank and file.

Health coverage is a huge issue, and Gephardt owns it. It's a budget buster, but who cares? Bush is in a poor position to say much about that. The man from Mo has taken a leaf from the Reagan-Bush campaign manual. He's selling candy.

Big Pharma, which spent more than Gephardt's own Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee last year, will go after him like a pack of wild dogs. But they would anyway. All-out union support, down to the labor-donated Xerox machine level, can counteract the TV manure blast, esp. given that the people WANT what Gephardt is selling.

Ron Fournier on Gephardt:

When Dick Gephardt attacked his free trade-backing rivals for president, Deb Hansen shouted her approval. She shook her fist and applauded when the Missouri Democrat blasted President Bush's tax cuts.

When he spoke in hushed tones about his son's recovery from cancer, she dabbed tears from her eyes. "I've never seen this much emotion from Gephardt," Hansen said after Gephardt and five other Democratic presidential candidates addressed her Iowa labor group. "It's a new face for him."

Gephardt is working hard to put a new face on his campaign. The old one hasn't been working.

Ron Fournier is a helluva writer. Where others say "a period of unfavorable weather set in," he takes Prof. Strunk's advice and says, "it rained every day for a week."

And instead of talking out of the corner of his mouth like a campaign manager, Fournier does what more reporters should do--he reports.

Speaking of reporting, the S.F Chronicle's Marc Sandalow does some today, talking to national conservatives including those at the National Review. The editors would love to win Calif. But the conservative mag can't swallow Arnold's views and recommend against him in an upcoming issue. See also Rove Tit in Wringer, below.

WONDERFUL WINOS

A careful and detailed look at the GOP consultants associated with the recall is found in The American Prospect.

However, as scribes have been wont to do every since Joe Cerrell was a teenager, the writer says Schwarzenegger paid George Gorton $780K for Prop 49. That's a little misleading. Some other people, like TV station owners, also got paid out of that money. Gorton might have cleared $200K, which is about what any small agency would make on a similarly-sized ad and PR account.

All campaign managers die broke, so don't begrudge the guy his moment in the sun.

The recall story is really not all that complicated:

The GOP hired $1.7 million worth of winos. That's why we have this election.

The winos got to keep about 900 grand at a buck a signature, and the rest went to consultants who had to put up with both the winos and the horrid contributors who provided the money. Whatever they got paid, they earned it.

The other big news flash in the article is that political consultants like to make money. Hey, sue me. I feel the same way.

Working for Arnold and Mrs. Arnold can't be a day at the beach. Campaign managers are masochists, to be sure. But there is a limit to how much torture even a Republican should be asked to endure.

In a way, I wish this were over so I could work on the Recall Arnold campaign. First of all, he will deserve it because he doesn't know doodly about being Governor.

And second, the signature-gathering winos will definitely need the work.

ROVE TIT IN WRINGER

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

California's conservatives are not going to buy it a second time. Rove and Bush have intervened on behalf of
Arnold, a liberal Republican, and they'll pay a price

Rush Limbaugh, while disclaiming any attempt to make Rove and the White House look bad, does exactly that. Why is he documenting the White House betrayal of its base if he doens't intend to do something about it? I could even picture him doing a Pat the Brawler imitation and running for president himself.

The Bush denials of involvement are comical, led as they are by favorite Bush flackette Mindy Tucker

And it's not as if all will be forgiven if Arnold wins. In fact, an Arnold loss might be better for Bush as far as his base is concerned.

When you support a pro-abortion, pro-Gay, pro-Gun Control Republican for one of the most important jobs in politics, that is, pure and simple, betrayal.

Try as they might, the CRA (which unanimously endorsed McClintock) and other members of the Right will NOT be able to swallow this. On top of everything else, the guy is Teddy Kennedy's nephew by marriage. Worse still, he OPPOSED the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Such a person will "make a good governor"? So says George Bush's mouth. The European press calls this what it is, an endorsement.

Is the GOP base going to buy this? No way, Dude. They hate Arnold. So how are they going to be all that big on Karl Rove? Or even his boss? The White House has now, twice (count 'em), meddled in an important California election on behalf of two liberal Republicans, Riordan and Schwarzenegger.

If Rove is really lucky, he could draw a primary opponent in NH with this stunt.

Nice work, Karl. For a guywho's supposed to be a genius, sometimes you act like a real horse's patoot.

BIG GUY TERMINATES CAMPAIGN MANAGER

The LA Times reports that Arnold "Little Peter" Schwarzenegger has shuffled his campaign team, replacing its best-known consultant with its least.

George Gorton, identified last week as the leader of the "crack team" hired by the Big Guy, will now take "a lesser role." He will be replaced by Bob White, a Pete Wilson guy.

Hard to know what's going on inside that room. But I think it's safe to say working for Arnold is no day at the beach.

Last campaign I remember that tried a complete end-run around the press was Mel Levine's U.S. Senate run in 1994.

As I recall, the well-financed Levine was moving up in the polls when somebody noticed that consultant Michael Berman hadn't sent out a single press release or allowed a single interview.

The resultant hammering buried him.

Now I know you will say, "I knew Mel Levine, Mel Levine was a friend of mine, but Mel, you were no Arnold Schwarzenegger."

And this is true. Dan Walters correctly observes that the Schwarzenegger Campaign, whoever's running it, will stick to its "say nothing" strategy as long as their numbers stay in the stratosphere.

But I don't think anybody can get away with taking a complete duck. Look at Condit; was there every a politician in more solid with his district than he? Shouldn't he have been able to get away with not talking? But he was run to ground like a fox pursued by dogs, because when they're out to get you, they usually get you.

And quite aside from outside pressures to give interviews, I'm guessing the Big Guy is burning to show off that winning smile and that Austrian intellect. Today's shuffling of campaign consultants may reflect Arnold's dissatisfaction with wearing a muzzle.

As I write this, an AP radio story is rolling from East to West that leads off, "the campaign has barely started -- and already a shake-up is reported in the Arnold Schwarzenegger camp.

NADER, SCAB, GETS PIE IN FACE

Tuesday 8/12/2003 7:50:32 PM

NADER, SCAB, GETS PIE IN FACE

What a lamentable occurence. The traitorous man who sold out every progressive principle he has ever pretended to stand for got a pie in the face. The arrogant man who served as midwife to the illegimate birth of the most anti-environment, anti-consumer protection and anti-labor policies in the history of the United States was humbled with pie. The reprehensible man who gloated over the triumph of George Bush got slimed with pie.

How very, very sad. Nader scabbed on every liberal in the U.S. in 2000. Now he is scabbing on California's embattled Democrats.

Nader is a scab. Still, one must deplore the pie-ing of this scab. It could get nasty. Someone might go even further and fill the next pie with shit, gravel or even nails.

And what a sad, sad day that would be.

The Scab

"After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, and the vampire, he had some awful substance left with which he made a scab.

"A scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a water brain, a combination backbone of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles.

"When a scab comes down the street, men turn their backs and angels weep in heaven, and the devil shuts the gates of hell to keep him out.

"No man (or woman) has a right to scab so long as there is a pool of water to drown his carcass in, or a rope long enough to hang his body with. Judas was a gentleman compared with a scab. For betraying his master, he had character enough to hang himself. A scab has not.

"Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Judas sold his Savior for thirty pieces of silver. Benedict Arnold sold his country for a promise of a commision in the british army. The scab sells his birthright, country, his wife, his children and his fellowmen for an unfulfilled promise from his employer.

"Esau was a traitor to himself; Judas was a traitor to his God; Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his country; a scab is a traitor to his God, his country, his family and his class."

(Possibly Mother Jones; attributed erroneously to Jack London)

DICKIE G. TELLS IT LIKE IT IS

You gotta love Dickie G.'s comment on the California recall: "This is an attack on the institutions of our government. That's what Republicans do."

It's true. From the shuttered up U.C. Extension building in San Francisco to the abusive Homeland Security attempts to hunt down Tom Delay's political opponents in Texas, that is, indeed, what they do.

Wino patron Darrell Issa is a good example of the disdain in which the election-stealing GOP holds our instiutions. When Democrats protested Bush's state of the union message with empty seats, Issa and like-minded thugs brazenly crossed the aisle to fill them up, like so many Nazi stormtroopers dressing up like G.I.s. Why not impeach Clinton and recall Davis? They're Democrats, aren't they?

Today's Reps have no honor, decency or respect. Nancy Boy Ralph Reed's attack on Max Cleland, winner of the Silver Star, proved that.

I'm with Gray Davis on dealing with the GOP. I say rip out their lungs so we don't have to listen to them talk.

INVISIBLE PRIMARY STILL INVISIBLE

What are the presidential candidates doing while Arnold snorts all the air out of the room? Well, Bob Graham is getting votes the old-fashioned way...by earning them. It's is the "Graham for Mayor" strategy.

Proof that he's practicing what he preaches comes, not from Nightline, but from the Ft. Madison Daily Democrat

Remember how Landslide Lyndon won his first congressional race? It was by scouring every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse for votes.

Sometimes called "retail politics," what Graham and all candidates with any brains are doing is more like door-to-door peddling than operating a store.

Don't let the glamour and glitter of California's bright lights lure you into forgetting that IA and NH are all about Voter ID and GOTV. Total turnout in both states: Maybe 200,000. Maybe less. And in this crowded field, a guy could make a name for himself with 20% of the ballots cast.

It is possible that Dean's lead will remain frozen in Aspic while the the national press--and esp. the national broadcast media--remain fixated on Calif.

James Ridgeway makes exactly this argument in the Village Voice.

However, it is also possible that temporarily starving the Dean Campaign's coverage will take the mickey out of him. His famous Internet fundraising has depended in large measure upon goosing contributors with a giant's helping of free media. And, since he was in the middle of a glorious media tongue-bath, it stands to reason the candidates who were not being heard will be hurt less than Dean by the publicity drought.

Radio silence in NH and IA helps the candidates who are zoned in on local voters. Right after Labor Day would be a great time for spot buys--like those planned for Johnny Edwards--to get seen and heard without smart-assery and static from the pundit class.

And it's a great time for hosting BBQs and eating Korn Dogs and such at the county fairs.

PROXY WAR

In what I think will be the first of many similar opinion pieces from California's scribes, widely-read LA Times columnist Steve Lopez disses Steroid-for-Brains and talks up Peter Ueberroth who, all kidding aside, would make a good GOP governor if there were any reason to recall the present Democratic one, which there isn't.

The recall is the first engagement of the 2004 presidential race. Ultimately, it is not a referendum on Davis so much as it is a referendum on Bush. Bush gave Arnold a kiss on the cheek, and he can't unkiss it.

Ueberroth is a likely choice for newspaper publishers concerned about good government and desirous of standing clear from the partisan mud. I believe that many will also recommend a NO vote on the recall in protest of what George Will calls the "plebiscatory cynicism" of wino-hiring.

Partisanship, however, is what this whole thing is about, beginning with signature-gathering winos and ending with scumbucket TV commercials.

However if turnout projections remain high, Democrats and the Unions may have a chance to punish GOP overreaching in a way that hasn't been seen since the 1958 Right to Work Initiative and Knowland-Knight campaign when Democrats swept all the pieces off the table. The State Fed is planning to dump $10 million into phone banks, canvassing and GOTV to encourage voting by low- and middle-income Californians.

At the moment, it appears that said encouragement will be crowned with remarkable success.

Dan Weintraub reports in "Last Chance Session" a Democratic move to replace the car tax with higher taxes on the rich. This is a beautiful thing. The Reps just HATE it when you do class warfare back at them.

Weintraub's right-wing drool case friend, Hugh Hewitt seems to think he can expose the Dems "soak-the-rich" scheme. Good luck, pal. I mean, I love your show. I really do. Never change, Hughie. But I like lower vehicle registration fees even better. You know what I'm trying to say, here, Hughie? Nothing against you personally, but your politics stink up the room. Make me want to light a match, you know it?

The dominance of talk radio, first seen in the 1994 House races, DEPENDS on low turnout. Remember, God loves the Democrats because he made more of us. The influence of the drool-case Right declines as turnout goes up.

Because of the seismic shift in turnout expectations, campaigns should even now be moving money away from GOTV toward media, both paid and unpaid. People are going to vote anyway; the point now is to change some minds.

MASSIVELY REDUNDANT TURNOUT

MSNBC is out with another snap poll showing shockingly high turnout numbers. Dan Weintraub doesn't believe them, but that's what people are telling any pollster who will ask them.

The Arnold thing has shattered a lot of my notions about this recall, none more firmly-held than the notion that an election in October of an odd-numbered year doesn't get much participation.

A huge difference this time is the saturation media coverage on non-traditional channels (i.e., Leno, Wrestling, etc.). Your low propensity voters watch this kinda crap incessantly. PBS is a litttle ways back--like 64 furlongs.

So you gotta know that Arnold is gonna get slimed from at least five directions, and that doesn't count Ariana. So the question is, do the lowlifes vote even after they find out that their action hero is going to wreck the state? I'm inclined to think yes.

The Big Guy has got lots of charm, no doubt. But he's a scum-sucking chicken-crap musclebound bun-boy with fewer qualifications for the job than Seabiscuit. Right hand to god, I'd rather see Tom McClintock who, if he wrecks the state, will at least do so on purpose.

BAD NEWS WITH BREAKFAST

Yesterday's USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll contains grim numbers for Davis and the Dems.

However, like Saturday's poll, the questionnaire does not take into account the effect of partisanship, which will play a very large role.

Because the candidatres are not identified by party label, the results are distorted and do not reflect the effect of a single Democrat running against four major Republican candidates. Nevertheless, the numbers unmistakably show the Dems dwelling in a house of pain.

An interesting finding was the huge level of interest in the election, with 60% of respondents saying they are absolutely certain to vote. This is certainly not what Issa intended when he hired the winos and constitutes a bit of good news--otherwise absent from this poll--for the Dems.

Remove Davis: 64%
Keep Davis: 29%

Pro/Leaning Schwarzenegger: 42%
Pro/Leaning Bustamonte: 22%

Schwarzenegger Image ratio: 79-12


I'd say it's time for some of that famous puke politics.

BAD NEWS WITH BREAKFAST

Yesterday's USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll contains grim numbers for Davis and the Dems.

However, like Saturday's poll, the questionnaire does not take into account the effect of partisanship, which will play a very large role.

Because the candidatres are not identified by party label, the results are distorted and do not reflect the effect of a single Democrat running against four major Republican candidates.

The most interesting finding was the huge level of interest in the election, with 60% of respondents saying they are absolutely certain to vote. This is certainly not what Issa intended when he hired the winos and constitutes a bit of good news--otherwise absent from this poll--for the Dems.

Remove Davis: 64%
Keep Davis: 29%

Pro/Leaning Schwarzenegger: 42%
Pro/Leaning Bustamonte: 22%

Schwarzenegger Image ratio: 79-12

I'd say it's time for some of that famous puke politics.

SNAP POLL DISTORTS RECALL VOTE

The AP headline, Poll: Davis would lose to Schwarzenegger, distorts both parts of this two part election campaign.

On Question One, Davis cannot lose to Schwarzenegger; he can only lose to Davis. Voters have to vote YES on recall for Davis to lose. The AP story omitted the following finding from its story:

"Do you think the recall is good or bad for California."

Result: statistical tie, 47%-46%.

To be sure, voters say they plan to vote to remove Davis from office by a margin of 54%-35%. However, to do so, they must vote YES on a recall about which they have obvious misgivings.

The situation is analogous to the impeachment and attempted removal of Bill Clinton. In the final analysis, many senators voted AGAINST impeachment rather than FOR Clinton.

On Question Two, poor questionnaire design also distorts Schwarzenegger's advantage. By failing to include party labels, both Bustamonte's support level and the ticket-splitting effect of GOP candidates Simon, McClintock, Ueberroth on Schwarzenegger are undercounted. I estimate that 70% of the ballots cast will be based primarily on party label.

The astonishing Democratic party unity that produced a single replacement candidate is a huge advantage to our side. The boys on the bus have been slow to get wise themselves on this fact.

Most of Garamendi's 4% would presumably go to Cruz, which by itself places the race at 25%-19%, within the poll's 4.5% margin of error. In other words, Bustamonte may already be winning the replacement vote.

This poll was conducted on a single day, Saturday, probably the worst day of the week for finding people at home. Any pollster would prefer to interview over three days, preferably Tu-Th. So the possibility that the entire sample is bad may be higher than the usual one chance out of twenty that is typically quoted as a 95% confidence level.

DEMS IN THE CATBIRD SEAT

If the election were held today, Davis would be recalled and Steroid Boy would be governor.

BUT, the election won't be held today. And the Austrian is gonna wish he'd stayed in the weight room.

One Dem, four Reps. You do the math.

As Arnold's unfavorables climb--and believe me, climb they will--polls will show Cruz leading the pack in the final weeks of the campaign. And this in turn will help doom the recall.

The argument that the recall is bad for California is not Davis spin. It's the truth. The numbers of people who will oppose the recall on principle will grow. The national press corps loves the circus, but the California press will sooner or later begin to ask, "who cleans up after the elephants?"

There is a moral question here: Does Davis deserve to be recalled? And does California deserve to be turned upside down in a shake-and-bake bag?

We have a proxy war here between Bill Clinton and George Bush.

And my money's on the Big Dog.

GEORGE GORTON GETS NO RESPECT

The track record of California rich guys financing their own campaigns is not encouraging.

One reason is that they run their campaign managers around instead of listening to them.

In this respect, Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign for governor didn't get off to a very good start, acccording to Karen Tumulty in Time.

Goop-for-brains Arnold decides to run four seconds before walking onto the set with Jay Leno, leaving consultant George Gorton gasping with a "I'm not running" speech in his hands. Final indignity: Leno's security throws Gorton out on his ass for scrambling around with his cell phone back stage trying to tell Joe Shumate and others what had just transpired.

Sucks to be Arnold's campaign consultant.

Recent history of self-financed campaigns

2002 Bill Simon (R) $10 million*, LOST
1998: Al Checchi (D) $40 million LOST
1998: Jane Harmon (D) $16 million LOST
1998: Darrell Issa (R) $11 million LOST
1994: Michael Huffington (R) $29 million LOST
*Of $30 million raised.

Rich guys like slaves around them. For the ultimate narrative of campaign manager abuse, read Ed Rollins' account of the Perot Campaign.

DEMS ROOT AROUND FOR COVERAGE

The California recall has temporarily put the kibosh on coverage of the invisible primary and reduced last week's celebrity, Howard Dean, to scraping for tidbits from lesser known websites such as Gayapolis. The story says "a growing list of gay and lesbian celebrities" are backing Ho Ho.

I think this support is what has Karl Rove licking his porcine lips at the prospect of a Dean candidacy. It is no accident that Rove's bitch, George W. Bush, delivered a sanctimonious "defense of marriage" speech just as Dean was vaulting to the head of the Democratic pack.

Dickie G.does a little better, picking up an NH story about his health care plan. Although talking up its high cost, the Portsmouth Herald story by Nancy Cicco serves the Gephardt Campaign well by helping to make the health care issue front and center.

The Gephardt plan, btw, gooses small business right where it will do the most good with a 60 percent payroll tax credit.

Graham's biggest PR coup is a story about how he's getting zero traction in IA.

Kerry does as well as anyone, with Nashua NH coverage showing how he turned a Dean-leaning college student around with a candid and well-informed answer about his Iraq vote.

SCRIBES GET WISE TO GOP FRACTURE

Dean Murphy in NYT has a prediction from Lou Cannon that the right-wing will attack the Charles Atlas Course Graduate who would be governor.

Watch your verb tenses, Dude. Said attacks are already splashed all over Rush Limbaugh's website like gangland graffitti on an East San Jose railroad crossing.

Murphy does a better job of reporting than most, talking to people like Cannon, Lyn Nofziger and Ken Khachigian, the Reagan wordmeister and recently unemployed Isssanista, all of whom actually know something about California politics.

The story points out, for example, that Reagan didn't decide to run two days before election but, rather, spent years and years perfecting his hard-right "the" speech on the GOP rubber-chicken circuit.

The Sacramento Bee's Sam Stanton writes up the potential dangers posed by rootless mercenary armies of signature-gathering winos roaming the state. The story contains an unvanished threat from Demo Party Boss Bob Mulholland to do unto the Republicans as they have done to the state.

It's like the poet Marvell told Cromwell: "the same arts that do a power gain, must it maintain."

Same edition cuts Bill Simon a small huss, reminding people that he came within five percentage points of Davis. Simon, widely regarded as a chump, illustrates one the iron laws of political campaigns:

You're never as bad as they say you are when they say you're bad. And you're never as good as they say you are when they say you're good.

CONAN THE VULGARIAN

Friday 8/8/2003 8:58:18 PM

With 24 hours to go, Yahoo News placed the Ueberroth story under "Politics," and Schwarzenegger story where it belongs, under "Entertainment."

And while the press continues to pound the "Democratic disunity" storyline down a rathole, Rush Limbaugh and The Traditional Values Coalition are gearing up to beat up Senor Iron-Pumper.

The all-time NASTIEST California political fights have always been Republican-on-Republican, and this one is not going to be an exception.

By nationalizing this race, the Bush White House has embarked on a high-risk, low-reward strategy. Even if they win half a term for this grotesquely unqualified circus clown (Memo to Arnold: start reading the paper), they will earn with it the undying enmity of some hard-working GOP-ers who regard themselves, with some justification, as the heart and soul of the party.

And frankly, I think two things are going to happen:

1. Rove's footprints will be found on Darrell Issa's (note to self: Spell the guy's first name right, and maybe he'll quit balling) rear end. And Rove's boss's kiss on the Austrian's cheek will be noted in the building. (The building that holds the GOP's activists).

2. The recall will be defeated. And said defeat will take place at exactly the same time as the Democratic race for president starts to jell, with endorsements by Al Gore and quite possibly AFL-CIO.

Newspaper endorsements will matter a lot since many voters will be confused about the recall. I believe that most publishers who pretend to any sort of independence wouild have to swallow very hard to justify a Yes on Recall recommendation. And on the replacement ballot, many will be attracted to Uebberoth.

Arnold said he would "clean up" the state's deficit, but that he wouldn't let anyone "lay a finger on education." Anyone who reads a paper, much less anyone who writes editorials for one, will have a problem with this kind of arrant jackassery.

If musclehead doesn't want anyone to lay a finger on education, he will either have to raise taxes or open up the gates of the state prisons and let everybody out, because there is no other way to balance our budget.

LACHRYMOSE LAMENTATIONS FROM A GOP LOSER

Bare-knuckled tough guy Darryl Issa beslubbers himself at the thought of $1.6 million on signature-gathering winos going for snot, I mean naught.

Buck up, Dude. Be grateful you beat all your cases.

ISSA ISN'T

The Sacto Bee's Daniel Weintraub hypothesizes a YES landslide in California's recall, but I can't see it unless the Reps rally around Arnold in a big way.

And I don't quite feature that. The hard-core rank and file GOP (i.e., your gay-bashin' right-to-lifers and such) ain't too big on the Big Guy. I don't see the Reps getting their act together behind a guy none of them wanted to run.

However, they leaned hard enough on Darryl "But I was never convicted" Issa to get him out of the race. He says he'll still be a factor in the Yes on Recall Campaign. He would be anyway, I imagine, since he's the guy who hired the $1.6 million worth of winos to get it on the ballot in first place.

Davis may get dumped. But those who want to replace him should beware. There are still plenty of winos looking for work that includes a free clipboard. And CNN/Gallup found that nearly of .1/3 of the electorate are up for a recall at given time.

So it's not like the winos have to find a needle in the haystack.

But recalls usually fail. Anybody want to give a price this one doesn't?

BUSTAMONTE-ING THE RACE WIDE OPEN

...NOT!

The national media has been pulling so hard for a Democratic street-fight that they can't even tell the Sharks from the Jets. Bloomberg News says that Arnold shattered plans for Dem unity--like we have any control over this steroid-enhanced Nazi spawn.

I say the Reps are more screwed up than the Dems--by far.

I know these gimlet-eyed CRA ladies. They ain't gonna buy the muscleman, not with his whorin' around and liberal politics.

I say they'll get behind Issa who, from their point of view, brought all this wonderfulness to pass. Or Simon. Or Bill Jones. And just because Riordan said he would run if the muscleman didn't doesn't mean he won't run just because the muscleman did.

And I say none of it matters because sensible Californians in both parties will cast a "no banana republic" vote on the first question. Note to National Press Corps: We eat and sleep here. How about moving the latrine a little ways from the tent?

I say turnout will be hella low. Not great news for Cruz. Normally this is advantage GOP, but not when they're acting like circus baboons. What the hell are THEY doing nominating half a dozen major candidates? Is that anyway to recall somebody? Reminds me of the 1980 Kennedy campaign, where everybody was so busy fighting over who would get to be in the cabinet that they forgot to beat Carter.

Prediction: Democrats who get into this are buying themselves a one-way ticket to the boneyard. Bill Lockyer wants to be governor, bad. But Mrs. Lock didn't raise any stupid children, and that's why he's waiting until we have a real election.

This has gone way past circus to freak show. And the resulting negative atmospherics equal "No Recall."

Final point: Taking out papers doesn't always mean bringing them back in. Suppose a guy gets a visit from a rep. of the Laborers International with a 20" neck? Then what?

GORE ENDORSEMENT DUE?

Mario Cuomo just endorsed Gore. But who will Gore endorse?

Do you remember Cuomo's electrifying keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco?

Maybe not. The youngest Dean voters were born that year.

They were ten when Cuomo, Speaker Foley and many others were chopped down like so much old lumber by Newt Gingrich & Company.

And now, what do you know? Here they are old enough to vote. Mario's keynote speech is a civics lesson now.

Cuomo wants Gore to run. But hey pal, who don't?

Terry Mac says Gore says no way. And Terry Mac was right about Goody Two-Shoes saying out of the California Recall soup, wasn't he? That's because Terry talks to God, and no sane Democrat is going to lie to him or to his old boss, Elvis, neither.

But you know what I wonder? I wonder if Gore is going to endorse someone. He said he probably would on Dec 16 of last year. It could be a pretty big deal. Gore urged Dems to oppose the Iraq War on the grounds that it would be a distraction from Afghanistan. Win one war before starting another the Veep said.

Holy Joe, the Vet, Dickie G. and Honest John Edwards all ignored him. Graham didn't. So that's a possibility. Kucinich is, I think, too much of give peace a chance guy for Gore.

However, if Gore endorses, why not Dean? The Doc is exactly the kind of new blood Gore got out of the race to encourage.

LEFTIES ROAR FOR KUCINICH

The more liberals hear about Kucinich--and Dean--the more they are going to like Kucinich.

Kucinich wants to start a Dept. of Peace. Is this really so laughable? I think some day we will have such a cabinet-level department and little children will wonder what took us so long. However, that day will arrive long after the 2004 election is over.

Liberals don't care if he can win. He's the real straight whiskey, and that's how they like to drink it.

Those who write, tediously, that only Dean has drawn crowds or excited them should have been at the California Democratic Council breakfast last Saturday. McClatchy's John Ellis writes that Kucinich brought the crowd of died-in-the-wool libs to their feet twice.

And with financial support from Shotgun Willie--who has scheduled three fundraising concerts in Des Moines IA, Cleveland OH, and Madison WI--Kucinich will have the cash he needs to jump all over the free media.

Like the campaigns of Jerry Brown or Pat Buchanan, Kucinich's is the kind of operation that can run on brown rice, seaweed and a vegetarian hot dog.

I know your lefties. And I say that they'll walk through the snow for this guy. That's why I make him a beauty pick for the long-shot bettor in IA.

IOWA MORNING LINE

GEPHARDT: 9-5 Have this one to catch. IAM and Teamos will help.
DEAN: 3-1 Dangerous on the front end.
KERRY: 4-1 Can run with the leaders
KUCINICH: 10-1 Best chance play of the race
LIEBERMAN: 15-1 Question of condition
EDWARDS: 15-1 No traction yet
GRAHAM: 15-1 9 for 9 in previous but lame workouts so far
SHARPTON 99-1 Wrong horse. Wrong track. Wrong bet.
BRAUN 99-1 Poor effort in previous

TAKING TEN TO LAND ONE

TAKING TEN TO LAND ONE

As speculated here previously, Bob Graham's slugfest with Bush is hurting Bush, but he is sacrificing his body to make the hit.

A Mark Silva story in the Orlando paper cites a Mason-Dixon survey showing Graham's personal popularity skidding downward in Fla.

However, Graham is in IA with an anti-war message, 30 staffers, and almost as many grandchildren. He is a skilled veteran campaigner. If Dean slides, he could start moving up. Like Kucinich, Graham voted AGAINST the war in Iraq, a fact that Ho-Ho seems to get wrong:

Dean repeated his oft-stated assertion that he, in contrast to such rivals as Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and Bob Graham, offers a clear alternative to Bush.

"We opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning," he said, "so it turns out that the four Washington candidates all supported a war which turns out to be based on things that weren't so."

Dean presumably meant to include Edwards in his gang of four, but that's not how the AP reported his comments.

REPUBLICANS FOR DEAN

CK Rairden, a Handicapper from the rightward Washington Dispatch has dropped the odds on Dean from 100-1 to something like even money. He's urging GOP donors and voters to "crash the Democrats 2004 primary election and help elect the GOP dream opposition candidate, Howard Dean and let the landslide re-election of President George W. Bush begin. "

Three points:

1. As for Dean being a Karl Rove wet dream, I would say: "Be careful what you pray for. You might just get it." In a couple of previous elections, Dems were lighting candles for Pat the Brawler Buchanan, but I'm not so sure we would have enjoyed running against him as much as some imagined. Dean is a puncher. If I were Rove, I think I'd rather face an old broken-down pappy guy like Lieberman than an aggressive unpredictable campaigner like Dean.

2. I give this guy Rairdon all the credit in the world for having the guts to post his handicapping numbers. He's a writer for a small-town paper who could give lessons to better-known figures on what we expect from pundits.


3. Rairdon's call to the GOP to help Dean will provide ammo to other Dems who will use it to claim their guy is the "real" Democrat.

THE HO-HO AND HOLY JOE SHOW

Even his friends admit Joe Lieberman is a putz.

Al Gore, God love him, didn't do us no world a good by wishing this guy on us.

Imagine if Gore had chosen Edwards, Kerry, Graham, or even Gephardt. First of all, he probably would have won, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. And, even if he didn't win, we'd at least have a candidate.

Now we have the Ho-Ho and Holy Joe Show, each vying to see how much smack they can talk about other Democrats.

I gotta tell ya, I don't like the atmospherics here.

FOOL ABOUT MY MONEY, DON'T TRY TO SAVE

Dean is dumping a bundle on NH TV 25 weeks out. Don't know what the spending cap is, but if Dean were running for congress in NH, this single buy would put him over the top. Like a radio station trying to "hypo" the ratings, Dean probably hopes to take over the undisputed lead in NH polls, at least temporarily.

It's the free media that counts. Dean is wrong if he thinks he can get out in front of it. Unlike the Texas buy aimed at liberal contributors in Austin, this one is intended to sway voters, and that always costs more than you can raise from the spot itself

But this is the famous "all-important" NH primary, right? The winner of NH always goes on to win the nomination, right?

Well, not exactly. This fable will be repeated, but the truth is that the following candidates won the NH primary and did NOT win the nomination.

1952, Estes Kefaufer
1956, Estes Kefaufer
1964, Henry Cabot Lodge
1968, Lyndon Johnson
1972, Ed Muskie
1984, Gary Hart
1992, Paul Tsongas
1996, Pat Buchanan
2000, John McCain

I make the odds of winning the nomination without NH about 6-5 against. But all life is 6-5 against, so what else is new?

SEE DICK RUN

Labor leaders, perhaps getting ready to endorse Dick Gephardt, got an earful from the Big Dog. Would love to have been a flea on that dog, hear what they talked about.

SEIU, one of the white-collar unions dragging their feet about a Dick Gephardt endorsement, nevertheless is cutting him a big huss in NH. Under the name of New Hampshire for Healthcare, the union is bankrolling an 11 day flight starting Thursday advertising the importance of a health care policy.

Gephardt owns this issue the way Bush owns tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the Steelworkers are getting on board with him, making Gephardt the only candidate besides Dean who is generating his own news this morning.

On the level of elite politics, a full-scale union endorsement would probably vault Gephardt into the lead among NH opinion leaders, since there are at least five union people, including the head of the NH State Fed, who are undecided. And a union blessing would definitely be a word to the wise guy as far as the rest of the uncommiteds are concerned.

But AFL-CIO's political director Karen Ackerman says any of the candidates would be an improvement over Bush. These can't be encouraging words for Gephardt.

Still Dick is doing better than Humphrey in '72, when the Machinists were for McGovern and the Teamos for Nixon. Both of these monster internationals are backing Gephardt this year. There are 65 unions in AFL-CIO, but this does not mean Gephardt needs the support of 44 unions. Instead, he needs support from unions representing 2/3 of the union members. With support from three of the biggest biggest unions, Gephardt has made a start, but he won't get the rest of the way without backing from teachers and other public employees.

DEMS TO BUSH: DROP DEAD!

Democrats hate Bush, according to the NYT. There's a news flash.

Robin Toner's well-reported story seems to say, it's all about Kerry and Dean.

And maybe it is.

But David Yepsen, looking at the15% rule, says it's all about Dean and Gephardt in Iowa.

NH Pollsters and political junkies see the undecideds increasing as Bush's poll numbers recede.

Electability is on everyone's mind, at least in the two early states.

A lot depends upon what Dean does with his new front-runner status. He's shown he can dish it out; now we'll find out if he can take it.

Frontrunner's not always such a great place to be, this far out. If Dean can open up a real lead, climbing into the 30+% range, then he will probably be unstoppable. But if he stays out in front just enough to be an attractive target, the words "peaked too soon" will begin to show up. (Actually, reading Yepsen clear to the bottom, they already have).

Both Bush and Gore needed to get bloodied up a little in last year's NH campaign before they began to loosen up and get serious about fighting. So Dean's surge may actually be good for Kerry the candidate, who seems to be perfecting his retail thing.

As ever, much depends upon cash. Kerry has the best story to tell on paid media, and he seems to be squirreling away a decent TV warchest. And, as long as Graham and Edwards remain stuck in the gravel, Kerry also has the best story to tell the pros on electability.

But Dean is getting great bounce on his Austin TV buy--including seeing it run on Meet the Press--and that will translate into Internet dollars. If he keeps hitting line drives, he could wind up with more cash on hand than Kerry.

Dean stills need to cross a threshold. Everyone can imagine him as the Democratic nominee, but it's still a little hard to imagine him as president. With Bush looking more and more beatable--and "electability" on everyone's lips--I don't think it's over yet. The California recall will draw a lot of oxygen out of the room through October, giving the field plenty of time to adjust their strategies and run down the leader.

Frankly, I think Dean will find it hard to win the double--and anything less is already starting to look like not good enough.

Yepsen's Iowa-centric view of things may place too much emphasis on the first two contests. South Carolina proved in the GOP 2000 race that it's not a domino ready to fall based on what some Yankees do in NH. The name of the game in SC (and elsewhere) is not just winning--it's SURPRISING people.

GOOGLE KERRY AND GET DEAN

John Kerry's better late than never Internet initiative is a step in the right direction, but the Kerry Campaign is definitely twisting in the wind right now.

He seems to be going backwards in Iowa. The Des Moines Register poll has it Dean 23, Gephardt 21, Kerry 14.

And while the 402-voter sample size means that Kerry COULD actually be leading Dean 19-18, all other indicators suggest that Dean continues to make a monkey out of John Kerry.

A Google search on John Kerry turns up an article in which his supporters are portrayed as wishing they'd signed up with Dean. Look further, and you find major articles on Dean from Newsweek and Time .

Kerry has produced so little news of his own that bit-part mentions in the Dean stories constitute his major source of exposure today.

Kerry did catch one break today. Lieberman is obligingly falling into the Anybody But Dean role scripted by lunatics at the DLC who seem to be channeling Ralph Nader in their desire to trash the Democrats' 2004 chances. Still, it helps Kerry to have someone else running his mouth about Dean's lack of electability.

The Internet petition against overtime is a damn good idea, which should also help make sure that AFL-CIO thinks twice and three times before endorsing Gephardt. Kerry has been a good vote for labor and in fact is more liberal than Dean. But his campaign's ass is in a sling right now.

Gig 'em, Dems

Greg Palast writes:

Well, well, well. President George was in one hell of bind this week when it turned out that Saudi Arabia funded Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Realizing we'd invaded the wrong country, Bush did the honorable thing: he's come out against gay marriages.

And the courtly gentleman Sen. Bob Graham continues to gig Bush, asking what happened to "Osama bin Forgotten."

The crazy thing about the Rove snuff-movie shots and out-of-the-blue gay bashing is that the head fakes are obviously designed to take national security issues off the front page. But isn't this supposed to be Bush's big strength? Isn't this why the GOP Convention is going to be held in NYC nearly on the anniversary of 9/11?

Be a little tough not to talk about national security on September 11, 2004.

Meanwhile, if the president ventures into Austin during his month-long vacation, he will be able to see himself excoriated further on television, courtesy of a $200K Howard Dean Ad Campaign.

One reason why other campaign managers keep getting their asses handed to them by Joe Trippi is that he enjoys a large base of small contributors and therefore has to worry less about large donors demanding private meetings with Dean to badmouth the campaign.

The purpose of political campaigns at this stage is to raise money and earn free media. Dean's $200K buy in the Austin TV market does both. It is unconventional, yes, but that is what's required to make news. Moreover, it will pay for itself by expanding that very base of donors that gives Trippi the freedom to do unconventional things.

A new contributor is probably worth at least $100 between now and the fall election. Since the gifts are harvested on via email and on the Web, most of the money goes straight to the bottom line.

And the beauty part is, Dean--and his commercial message itself--gets big-time free media lift. Contributors unearthed by this commercial spending will not give simply once, but probably a minimum of four times between now and the election. Even if the average gift is only $25, this means that 2,000 new givers will pay for the ad campaign.

One of these days the media will get wise, and realize that covering Dean's fundraising commercials makes about as much sense as hyping a Dick Gephardt DC cocktail party for trial lawyers and union lobbyists.

But in the meantime, Joe Trippi is laughing all the way to the bank. Like Karl Rove, Trippi enjoys the confidence of his boss. This a key characteristic of successful campaigns.

ANOTHER KARL ROVE HEAD-FAKE

Gay marriage is a phony issue concocted not only to throw red meat to the right-wing drool cases but also to further distract attention from Bush's lies. Like the necrophiliac pictures of Saddam's sons, this is just another Karl Rove head-fake, as persistently, and accurately, alleged on Buzzflash.

Evidence can be found in the transcript of the press conference. Completely ignoring a pompously-phrased but nontheless important question about why he took the nation to war on flimsy evidence, Bush ignored two attempted follow-ups.

If ever there was a time for gang-tackling by the media, this was it.

Instead, Bush was completely taken off the hook by an asinine question on Gay marriage. Who did this? And why? I am reminded of Ross Thomas's novel, The Porkchoppers, whose denouement is brought about by a Washington reporter known by PR insiders to be willing to ask any question for a cash payment of $5,000 in 1970 dollars.

The reporter who asked the question about Gay marriage--at that moment--was complicit in keeping information away from the American people. I don't know who he or she was, and I certainly don't know if cash changed hands before the diversion was launched.

But I strongly suspect some kind of dirty dealing. It was too pat, almost as if Bush had called on Ari Fleischer. His nasty condescending "you're through, John," in response the second follow-up was uttered with complete confidence that the next question would pose no danger.

Gay marriage does not even show up in the top 8-10 national issues identified by any pollster. Moreover, there is no realistic likelihood that a bill legalizing gay marriage will see the light of day within the next two years, if then. Accordingly, there was obviously zero news value to be found in allowing Bush to utter his rehearsed platitudes on marriage instead of asking him why he lied to get us into Iraq and how in the hell he plans to get us out.